Re: El Reg units...
Actually, the reason is much simpler: it's just to annoy the French.
836 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
Actually, the reason is much simpler: it's just to annoy the French.
Sad and lonely troll is sad and lonely.
"You can't make an assumption like that, it's entirely possible that in a company that size there are several more!"
Indeed. They should start by trying their offices in The Netherlands.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "No."
"People don't buy phones for the OS, they buy them for the user experience, apps and hardware (in whatever order) It doesn't matter if the phone is running Android, QNX, iOS or Windows 10 underneath, if the phone is well designed and you like the GUI and can run your apps."
Heresy! Burn the infidel!
"Perfect for Cloud Storage!"
Citation, or at least evidence, needed.
"It barely reached 2,000ft before calling an emergency and tried to land, but hit an electrical pylon and crashed shortly afterwards."
That sounds like a "sub-optimal option" all right.
"Do you have an ONTAP courtier who steps aside from the rest and diffidently suggests that ONTAP Edge – the ONTAP-V product turning a server’s direct-attached storage into a virtual SAN – could actually become a real EVO: RAIL system, that NetApp could make an EVO: RAIL template like its FlexPod scheme?"
For the love of god, this. There's a mountain of potential locked up in OnTAP Edge, but the 10 TB limit is a show-stopper for use in core storage deployments or even reasonably sizable branch deployments. With software-defined storage on the rise, NetApp has a huge opportunity to appeal to the NetApp faithful, who might want to leverage familiar technology and features without deploying additional physical appliances, and to new potential customers, who see the appeal of the technology but who want to avoid the physical hardware footprint in the first place. As mentioned in the article, it would also enable a hyper-converged play with a richer feature set than Nutanix or Simplivity. Unfortunately, NetApp seems wedded to the idea of selling boxes rather than decoupling hardware from software, and that model seems to be less sustainable in the current market than it used to be.
What Alistair said. There's a fairly straightforward workaround to the disk-locking issues, which is to use in-guest iSCSI, but many organizations either don't have iSCSI support for block storage or have fear and loathing about using iSCSI for performance-oriented applications.
Which Reg commentard is the new Boss? My money's on jake, but there are so many possibilities.
The problem being solved by most storage federation/virtualization vendors is that their money is in your wallet. What they're really trying to figure out how to do is provide the minimum support needed for disparate storage resources so that they can lock you in to their own product. Software-defined storage provides a way out of that trap to a certain extent, but it has the disadvantage (largely perceptual) of not giving you a particular box to kick if something goes wrong. In truth, all storage arrays are "software-defined;" decoupling the software from the storage provides greater flexibility, but it feels more risky.
IMHO, of course.
There are always a few parts left over.
"a non-cash goodwill impairment charge from the strategic repositioning"
Can someone give me a translation in English?
I actually prefer unicorns for servicing my all-sequential workloads, since they also don't exist. Under real-world use conditions, I have never found a use case where flash storage in an array designed to make proper use of it was not helpful. Now, some vendors are more effective than others at making use of flash storage, but that's a different issue.
While I don't condone Uber taking advantage of the drivers, you're living in a fantasy world if you think you're somehow better off or personally safer with cab drivers. To the contrary, at least taking an Uber, the Uber app is tracking your location, so you have evidence in the event that an Uber driver takes you off to some secluded location to have his way with you.
This is purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but virtually every Uber experience I've had has been more pleasant than taking a conventional taxi would have been. If nothing else, Uber is putting pressure on the taxi companies and regulators to provide a better experience for consumers.
You don't understand--their forum is pathetic and sad; my forum is cool and enlightened!
. . . but what happens when you stick one in your ear?
"But then what happens when it's learned the cost to do it reasonable would price ANY home router out of the affordability range? What if the average home user can ONLY afford an insecure router?"
Your average home router is cheap commodity hardware presumably running a cut-down version of an open operating system such as Linux or *BSD. The effort involved to a) harden the OS and b) give each router a unique, difficult admin password should be minimal. These tasks are solved problems and should not raise the cost of a router by more than pennies. If they do, the vendor deserves to be priced or sued out of the market.
They would have gotten the product out of the door much sooner if they'd focused more on languages which are actually in use. I mean, who speaks Welsh?
Surveillance pretty much is everywhere these days.
Or is that not what you meant?
"Typical libtard statement."
You might have made a valid point, but no one will ever know since it followed this statement.
If your work requires you to use a proxy server, they can log your http traffic . . . such as that which communicates with El Reg. Posting as AC is only a useful defense if your work doesn't care enough to do that. Actually, if they care enough, they can just capture all your network traffic. Using your work PC to do something your work doesn't want you to do is a losing bet if they want to catch you badly enough.
Quite right! I prefer my current existence wherein governments and/or corporations wield no power over me whatsoever.
In re: "multi-year TCO," I can well imagine that to be the case, especially when you factor in the cost of power and cooling. However, if you have a hybrid array which de-stages all cold blocks to disk and then idles those disks, your power budget may still be low enough to counter the cost of flash. Not saying that this is the case, just that it could be. I definitely agree that flash offers great potential to improve storage efficiency (dedupe + compression with massively reduced processing time, for example), but is it sufficient to bring flash storage into parity with spinning rust?
There's also the question of capex vs. opex. Operationally, there's no question that flash is cheaper than conventional hard drives from an operational perspective. OTOH, many vendors offer a tremendous initial discount precisely because they know they'll be making back that discount in maintenance costs, making it easy for a purchaser to go to management with a smaller purchasing cost. Obviously, yes, it makes more sense to go with the product which offers a better TCO, but that's not the way all organizations work.
Finally, from the perspective of the end goal of Infinidat, maybe they don't even care about the overall marketplace and carving out their niche in it. If they can show that they do a better VMAX than EMC or a better USP than HDS, one of those companies is likely to buy Inifindat, thus handily lining the pockets of the VCs and founders. Thus Infinidat becomes VMAX 4 or whatever.
"This is a disk drive array and surely, long-term, disk drive arrays are the new tap libraries and will not store fast-access data or, eventually, near-line data either. Enterprise on-premise arrays will go all-flash; that is what analysts such as the people at Wikibon are saying."
Yeah, about that . . . wake me up when AFAs have a price per GB that comes anywhere near NL-SAS or SATA. Right now, the sweet spot in price/performance seems to be with hybrid arrays which offer bulk storage on fat, slow drives and a fast flash tier with concomitant storage logic designed to maximize the performance benefits of flash. Contrast this type of design with a legacy storage array which has hybrid storage bolted on (e.g. NetApp FAS or EMC VMAX); those arrays do not make efficient use of flash storage, especially for writes, no matter what the vendors say.
"A second worry is that hyper-converged systems are attacking the idea of a networked storage array being necessary at all."
The hyper-converged space is still, you know, converging, with significant concerns about the strength of the overall architecture. Enterprise customers also often have an existing storage infrastructure investment (HBAs, cabling, switches, etc.) and a pre-existing architecture to support it, so slapping in a new, faster array is less disruptive and often cheaper than trying to migrate to hyper-converged. New companies may want to make use of hyper-converged appliances, but I suspect there's a significant addressable market of well-capitalized, profitable companies who would be happy to have a box which plugs into their existing infrastructure and makes everything go faster.
"A third worry is that on-premises data is going to the cloud."
This concern is valid, but I think it mainly applies to newer companies, as above, or older companies which don't have data that matters to them. And who knows, maybe Infinidat is targeting cloud providers as well.
There are multiple large companies still selling large frame arrays and making a tidy bundle doing it, indicating that there's still a profit to be made in this space. Most of the offerings in the space that I've seen have some woeful deficiencies in terms of price efficiency, manageability, and performance, so a fast-moving competitor certainly has an opportunity to steal somebody's lunch.
I see the Microsoft fanboys are out in force.
Fanboys for Microsoft.
Hmm, no, I just can't wrap my head around their existence, no matter how I try.
Then install an Adblock-detector on your site and refuse to serve content to people running Adblock.
. . . code name TENTACLE OPERA CLOAK.
"Most people will struggle at first with any different device. Give Linux to a Windows user (and even OSX), and he or she will struggle with it in the beginning. Why smartphones took so many years to become mainstream?"
Smartphones took so many years to become mainstream because they were expensive and unintuitive, and data plans were usuriously priced, thus they remained in the purview of ubergeeks. Whatever its technical failings, the iPhone introduced an intuitive interface in a slick package, and Apple was able to lean on AT&T to sell it with more attractive data plans. I am far from an Apple fanboi and have never found the Mac UI to be particularly intuitive, but the basic UI manipulation of iOS was dead simple to understand (and I've watched plenty of non-technical people pick it up quite rapidly). Accessing advanced features may be more cumbersome, but by the time users get to that point, they've already made a decision about the device and its UI.
The problem that Microsoft faces is that it's competing against an entrenched base of users who are familiar with the UI paradigms of iProducts and Androids. Whether the WP UI is "better" becomes irrelevant to the vast majority of people when the existing paradigms are both good enough and familiar. As someone who installed CyanogenMod for what I consider a superior user experience to the vendor Android build which shipped on my phone and then went through a certain amount of pain to update CM to the latest snapshot build, I'm curious about WinPho but not enough to spend money on what may turn out to be a white elephant.
"But, if a UI is superior whilst requiring a steeper learning curve, it is still superior and worth the effort."
Superior for what, and for whom? For most people, ease of use and aesthetics are what matter out of the box; if the UI is confusing, then no one will want to use it. Let's face it, a smartphone is basically an object of convenience; for >99% of users, it exists to facilitate a greater ease in accessing something else, whether that's the Web, games, car services, food orders, or anything else. In order to be successful, the UI should maximize convenience, not conform to some geek's notion of what "superior design" constitutes.
"Likewise, WinPho, lovely interface, easy to use, smooth and elegant."
If it has a steeper learning curve, then this statement is clearly false.
I've never used WinPho, so I can't say whether it works well or not, but you are willingly ignoring the following quote from the article:
"But do you know what was a thousand times worse? Going on site, handing someone a Windows Phone,and watching them universally struggle with it…"
You, personally, may love the interface, but you're apparently in a tiny minority. This may come as a shock to you, but your opinion actually does not matter; if Microsoft can't capture a significant percentage of the addressable market due to an interface that the vast majority of people find confusing and incomprehensible, they can't sustain the phone business.
I'm assuming Websense will feed data back into the military-industrial complex, allowing for automated drone or cruise missile strikes against potential malefactors such as malware writers, spammers, or crackers. I support this integration and can see no reason why anything might go wrong.
"i (sic) don't want to be picky"
You have failed.
"Then they would not have to give it away."
You mean, like Linux? You may want to reconsider the thrust of that argument.
"Oh I see, you can comment as you please but I have to remain quiet."
I'm sorry, I thought there was an actual discussion taking place, but I see that you're actually trolling. Well played, then; I'm out. Get your fodder elsewhere.
"So what's the difference ?"
It's the same as the difference between asking you to stop conflating dissimilar things and slapping a piece of duct tape over your mouth.
Virtualization: it's like a mainframe, except cheaper, multi-vendor, modular, and distributable.
"What on earth is Sharktank?"
Hard to say. One day, perhaps someone will invent a simple way of looking up publicly-available information from the convenience of your desk or "tele-phone"; until then, just try asking around.
That's nice if you live in the countryside. For those of us who are city dwellers, the hazards posed by cars, feral humans, jumbo pigeons, and other urban hazards are a significant deterrent to letting the cats out.
The rationale I was given for using "organic" (i.e., grain- or wood-based) cat litter is that the desiccants in cat latter are bad for both your cat and you, especially if you live in a smaller residence. This may just be marketing guff, however. On the other hand, it is demonstrably true that the higher-end cat litters last longer and don't get tracked around the house in the same way.
This suggestion makes the most sense to me. Branching out into the hyper-converged space would be a huge tangent from their core business, but rearchitecting the array to use flash DIMMs or PCIe flash seems like it would massively improve performance in a variety of ways. SSDs in an AFA seem like a grossly inefficient way of providing flash RAM storage; they're more suited to providing flash storage in a hybrid array.
I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.
The point that you conveniently omit is that professions which tend to be mostly occupied by women are paid less and carry less prestige than professions which are mostly occupied by men. The push to diversity is in the interest of convincing women and minorities that they can, in fact, have careers in field which are traditionally dominated by white men and, indeed, convincing white men of the same thing.
If you buy a Nutanix cluster now, Nutanix has specified the hardware as well as the software which controls it, but the software has to sit in a resource-intensive virtual machine which needs to communicate with another layer of software, the hypervisor, in order to manipulate the hardware. It would clearly be much more efficient to roll the management software into the hypervisor and manage all available resources directly, essentially consolidating two layers of abstraction into one, yielding more efficient resource consumption and management. Even better for Nutanix will be if they allow users to have multiple flavors of Nutanix (native and third-party hypervisors) in the same cluster.
On the flip side, I envision VMware leaving a horse's head in Nutanix's bed as a result of this announcement.